Results From An Online Dating Experiment

A reader telegraphed the Chateau a link to a very interesting experiment that an intrepid blogger ran on OKCupid. He created ten fake profiles, five men and five women of increasing physical attractiveness, and measured the response rate he received over a four-month period. The results should be little surprise to regular guests of this mysterious sanctum sanctorum, but are worth examining in detail for the clarity they provide to men who are considering making online dating the fulcrum of their mate selection strategy.

The experiment: How many unsolicited messages do men get compared to women? And what difference does their physical attractiveness make to each man and woman’s success? [ed: all ten dummy accounts had the same written profile. you can read about his experimental set-up at his blog, which i recommend. we’ll focus on his results here.]

Here are the photos he used, ugliest to hottest, left to right:

The results after 24 hours showed that the two hottest women were instantly barraged with suitors, while the men, even the good-looking ones, struggled to get a nibble.

• Each woman received at least one message, but the two best looking women received 581% more messages than the other three combined.

• Only one man received any messages.

For the second-hottest chick, 1 in 3 men who viewed her profile sent her a message. For the second-hottest man, 1 in 10 women who viewed his profile sent him a message. (Strangely, the putative hottest man got no messages.) Conclusion: Looks matter a lot more for women’s mating success. Or: looks matter a lot less for men’s mating success (relative to all the other criteria they must meet to satisfy women’s 463 bullet-point checklist).

What about the results after 7 days?

As we can see, the two hottest girls are cleaning up in the attention whore sweepstakes. The two hottest men get a few bites, but because they are men and have no personal concept of the sheer volume of sexual attention that hot women experience during their brief window of prime fertility, they think they are Kings of Maine.

Even more depressing for those above average-looking men who think they can bank on their decent looks to score pussy, the ugliest girl (that cow all the way over on the left) got one more message than the three men, from left to right, got in total. The plain jane got almost as many messages as the two hottest men combined.

• Three of the men had no messages, despite their profiles being viewed about 25 times between them.

• The women’s messages outnumbered the men’s 17 to 1 (mostly thanks to the two best looking women).

Behold female hypergamy and male potency.

Finally, the results after four months:

Holy mackerel! Check your female privilege. The next time you hear a feminist whine about the patriarchy, show her this graph and tell her where the real power resides.

A couple things to note. The ugliest man got nothing after four months of desperation. The three men with looks ranging from ugly to above-average received a grand total of three messages over four months. If you are the average man, don’t plan on letting your generic beta profile and photo do your work for you. Hell, even if you are a good-looking man, you won’t have many messages to work with after four months. Conclusion: Men, you NEED game in order to excel in the thunderbone that is online dating. Otherwise, you’ll have better odds picking up women just talking to any of them that you meet walking down the street.

Worse, the ugliest woman got nearly as many messages as the best-looking man! (Or second-best-looking man, depending on your judgment of the rank order of male photos.) The second-ugliest woman — a piddling 3 or 4 by most men’s standards — received as many messages as the two hottest men received.

• The two most attractive women probably would have received several thousand more if their inboxes hadn’t have reached maximum capacity.

• It took 2 months, 13 days for the most popular woman’s inbox to fill up. At the current rate it would take the most popular man 2.3 years to fill up his.

This is why men, unlike women in their primes, cannot wait around for lovers to fall in their laps. They have to bust a move. This also explains why men, in general, have a firmer grip on the reality of the sexual market than do women: when you’re a hot babe, you can afford ignorance and platitudes because the tidal wave of messages will come regardless. But a man who wallows in pretty lies will soon find himself banished to Pudpullia, where boners go to chafe.

The blogger who performed the experiment also analyzed the content of the messages that the OKCupid customers were leaving the fake profiles.

My impression, after reading several hundred in the women’s inboxes, is that most men compliment the attractive women a lot, they make reference to something in the woman’s profile (you would not believe how many times men mentioned the party tricks and ‘Arrow’ the cheetah from the generic profile I wrote), or they ask a general question about travel or something equally boring.

They are rarely, if ever, imaginative…

Game will never become overexposed. Boring beta chumps who are truly nice outnumber charming aloof jerks who are truly cocky by about 1 million to 1. This is good news for the player with game who plays the online charade: online, you can decimate, because your competition is so weak and so ludicrously market saturated.

So what is the experimenter’s recommendation for men? His recipe for success will sound familiar to practitioners of the art of seduction.

• Demonstrate creativity, intelligence and a great sense of humour
• Be totally different to anything she may have received before
• Be obviously unique and not a cut-and-paste job
• Show that I’ve read her profile and absorbed facts about her
• Not be needy!

Note, too, that the guy running that blog sounds like a well-meaning liberal who probably thinks feminism is a-ok, so the fact that he’s coming to these conclusions about the sexes and the steps men need to take to attract women — steps which fly in the face of feminist and beta male bromides — suggests that his self-enlightenment is genuine, and not an affectation.

He includes in his post the “perfect message” that he sent to a cute chick, which you should go there to read. It’s a bit long and try-hard for my taste, but he mostly abides the standard game rules and does a good job avoiding horrible anti-game. Notice that at the end of his message he ASSUMED THE SALE. She replied positively.

He ends with thoughts about the obstacles that men and women face in the hyperconcentrated online meat market.

The fact that the first stage of online dating is so heavily stacked in women’s favour doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any easier for them, compared to men, to reach the end goal of pure love or perfect sex. They may have the pick of the bunch to begin with, especially if they happen to be really attractive, but they can still only date one man at a time—they must still filter the largely undifferentiated onslaught of male attention into yes and no piles. Then the yes pile has to be sorted through in much the same way as anyone else does it—by talking, bonding, finding common interests, realising there’s been a big mistake, or a wonderful discovery.

An overabundance of sexual attention is a problem most men would like to have. So I don’t buy his feminist-glazed assertion that women have it just as tough as men. First, he’s simply wrong to think women can only date one man at a time. Women, especially the hot ones, can and do date multiple men concurrently. Usually, they do this before they have committed to any one man with the broken seal of their vaginas, but before then women have no ethical or psychological roadblocks stopping them from dating three or five or ten men per week. In fact, I’ve known cute chicks who BRAGGED about how many men were treating them to nights out on the town.

It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time. Men, in contrast, will happily screw many babes concurrently if they could get away with it. Most men can’t, so they pretend they have morals to explain their heavenly monogamy.

Second, the online sorting process is not as hard for women as this guy is making it out to be. Women have finely honed beta male filter mechanisms that can quickly and efficiently sort the bores from the bosses. Sorting through 500 email messages becomes a lot less daunting when you can immediately delete the 495 of them that start with “You’re very pretty…” or “Hi, my name is…” or “Do you like living in…?”.

Granted, women have to put more time into their message sorting chores than men do (who base their judgments almost completely on a quick millisecond glance at a photo), but most women would secretly agree that the ego boost of an overflowing email inbox is worth the extra time picking through all the losers. For proof of this, just listen to any aging cougar who laments the loss of her youth when unwanted attention from men was a hassle. Being sexually invisible (like most men) is a change in life status most women don’t accommodate very well.

Beyond the scope of sorting, meeting and dating, there is a good point to be made that the difficulty level for women navigating the sexual market begins to rise and even surpass the difficulty level for men once relationships are within reach. Men can glide more easily in and out of failed dating adventures, and even failed LTRs, for they have more time on their side than do women. Plus, they have no risk of a disabling nine month burden. A couple years here and there with different women doesn’t much affect the overall dating outlook for men. Women, otoh, risk a lot more with the time and energy they invest in each man they date. An LTR that fails after two years can be fatal to a woman’s dating window of opportunity.

Two final notes.

1. It’s easy to be misled by this data from online dating sites that ugly women are just as in-demand as handsome men. No. First, the men contacting the ugly women are likely the dregs of malehood. Second, a low-effort copypaste email to an ugly chick is worth it from a loser man’s perspective if it results in a quick, sloppy lay. The trick for these ugly women, which they find is much harder to manage, is getting these losers to stick around and commit to them for more than the one-off perfunctory fuck. In other words, you can’t accurately judge a woman’s sexual market value by how much sex has, or how easily she can have sex, with losers.

Third, female choosiness means that the rate of online female messaging is not as indicative of men’s SMV as online male messaging is indicative of women’s SMV. An online profile is simply NOT ENOUGH for a woman to judge a man’s sexiness and compatibility. She needs to smell him, be touched by him, watch him move, listen to him speak, and furtively eye the way his crotch bulges. But an online profile IS ENOUGH for a man to judge a woman’s sexiness and, yes, sometimes even compatibility, because men seek to build connections primarily as a function of their visually-based lust, unlike women who seek to find reasons to dismiss budding connections as a function of their critical hypergamous impulses.

2. Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This is not to say that women don’t care about looks; only that women compartmentalize looks along with other, less physically tangible male characteristics that they are subconsciously attracted to in men. Less facially gifted men with game should be heartened by these online results: they show that a tight email message that exhibits the qualities of the preselected alpha male can draw the interest of cute girls who might otherwise dismiss these men based solely on their photos.

In short, women have a tool. Men have a toolbox. If a woman’s tool, however powerful it is, is broken, she’s shit out of luck. If a man’s wrench is broken, he reaches in and grabs the pliers.

Don’t wait for a woman to slip her tool in your toolbox. If you do that, you are looking at long dry spells. Reach in, grab your tools, and hot wire her circuitry.

313 Responses

Along that line of thought, when I had really good pics on my old profile, I had girls joining match to meet me. and every one of those 8-10’s ended up being naked with me on date 1 or 2. until betaness skeered em off. The data are impressive. Avg men can expect no boost from non-meatspace dating. What about controlling for age?

Can someone translate this for me? I have seen it in several places, and have no idea what it is supposed to men. It is unfair to dismiss those who use it as mentally ill, when I simply have no idea what it means. It may actually be something clever.”

i can show you the way, neo, but you will have to walk it zlozlzlzozzlozlzlzo

ozlzlz the more you read the mroe your life will improve as you come to see the fiat butthex matrix for what it is — you will see the green streams of fiat data (dripping with buttdouche fresh off the butthex presses) like the matrix but with a subltle difference as some of you wieinsteinas have already seen for urself lzozzll

and when you have walked the path you too will see the butthexing matrix for what it is and how the fed funded the desouling of womenz with massive amounts of douchcock frrom an early age in all tehir orfices and are acting through the soulles temptresses to seize your assetts now when a girl says, “what i really really want is a nice guy, i’m tired of the asswholes (lozlzl who got her younger hotter tighter)” instead of hearing what she says and then trying to be a nice guy you will hear the truth behind the butthexing matrix’s facade lzozlzl:

the sublime act of butthex is a beuatiful metaphor for what the fed does to a currency and a country, which is why the neocon weekly standard celebrates butthexers–es[pecially those who taope it without the girkl’s conthent and profit off the act. lzozlzlzlzl!

[on the war that devastated the Real World]
Morpheus: We don’t know who butthexed first, us or them. But we do know it was them that videotaped it without our consent while scorching the sky wioth a long trail of butthex lies. At the time, they were dependent on butthex power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the common man’s collective anushole. lozzllzlzlzzl

Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading. You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
Neo: What is the butthex fiat Mathrix?
Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo, and it’s looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.

[Neocon sees a black cat walk by them, and then a similar black cat walk by them just like the first one]
Neocon: Whoa. Déjà vu.
[Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neocon: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
Trinity: What did you see?
Cypher: What happened?
Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
Neocon: What is it?
Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthexMatrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer asscockig in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl

lozlzlzlzlzl

Morpheus: The Fiat lozllolozllzzl butthex Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. lzozozozozl! But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, bloggers, teachers, betas, lawyers, herbs, carpenters, and neocon womenz writing for the weekly standard, repeating the fiat lies of secretive tapers of butthex without teh girls conthent lzozlzlzlzl. The very minds and anusholes of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that butthex system and that makes them our anus’s lozlzlzozzozozl enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unbuttplugged. And many of them are so inured to butthex, so hopelessly dependent on the system of secretive tapings of butthex without tehir conthent, that they will fight to protect it and reapet the lies of secretive tapers of butthex in teh pages of the weekly standard even though they seem to be nice neocon ladies.
[Neo’s eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress (woman as temptress in the heor’s journey myth) who was desouled via copious fiat-funded butthex from butthexers celerbated in teh pages of the weekly standard?
Neo: I was…
Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
[the desouled, massively-butthexed woman in the red dress is now a bestselling new york times author, pointing a cock at Neo’s ass; Neo ducks]
Morpheus: Freeze it.
[Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
Neo: This… this isn’t the butthex Matrix?
Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us lozlzlzlzlers, you are one of them butthexers.

lozlzlzl

i wanna start lzozlzlzl media where we have a character based on who sees green streams of streaming data every time a bernankified chick opens her moutrh and throughout every episode all the herbs and betas pay for the meals of the chix butthexes in the end due to his supreme knowelge of being THE ONE lzozlzlzllzzl

i would be more like one of those minor characters along for the ride in the mother ship stanidng off to the side going lzozlzz zlzozlzozlzozlz zlzozllzozlzlzlz and don’t gte me worng i would score with all the hotties woudl get first pick for his lead dick and i’d get the next two as that’s only fair lzozlzlzlzllzlzllzl

Another truth hidden within that gem of a comment: I’ve found most fem-nazi’s are actually ‘pagan’ or technically “witch’s” of some sort – in the armchair mysticism sort of way. So being obsessed with religious studies/esotericism/occultism/etc…has helped me game some of these little demon’s into the bedroom just through knowing more about their spirituality than they do.

— Off Topic. On Topic. —-

Doing ‘spiritual’ exercises with them is hilarious (you can make them up on the spot and watch as they feel their spirit hovering over the Abyss you’ve created), here’s one that works quickly if you can get a chick to go along with it (my own version adapted from a scientology initiation exercise):

Have the two of you sit on a bed or somewhere comfortable, cross legged like you’re gonna meditate, relaxed, & facing each other (or in a two chairs – as long as you’re both sitting the same way) and – important – your knees must be touching. Tell her how (power of suggestion, but also is a trippy exercise you can do with yourself in the mirror alone even) once you both stare into each others souls or something like that, eye to eye, a series of hallucinations will begin, forms will shift, and minds will melt & meld: while the two of you become spiritually enmeshed your phenomenal realities will coalesce. All you must do is breathe deeply and slowly looking directly into each other’s eyes, trying to look through them, past them, inside of each other (soon enough her breathing will match yours – or the other way around); make sure! your knees are touching (you are literally mirroring each other); try to focus on only one thing, which is seeing past the surface, behind the veil, into each other’s “souls”; eventually you’ll start to hallucinate and y[her]r face[s] will become distorted, reptilian, or shadow like, morphological beings with empty eyes, or light and color will swirl or you’ll have the sense that she’s becoming invisible, etc…; your vision will re-calibrate itself each time you blink, but the longer you do this & the closer your bodies rhythms become, the weirder it gets; you’re supposed to do it for 45 minuts to get the full effect, but if you can get a chick to do that with you in the first place she’s probably your girlfriend; or you’ve got master game; or you’re going to scare her off, so I don’t suggest doing this on a first date, unless she’s cool and you’re both fucking psychedelic dandies like I can be sometimes.

Although I did this once with a girl I didn’t even have to game before I knew anything about game – I got a call around 10:30 from an unknown number, she said her ex gave her my number because he thought we’d get along, this guy that I knew from a halfway house, and she sounded cute, so I told her to come over. She came over & I didn’t learn her name until 3 days into our sex-fest. She ended up staying for a week at my place (I basically got kicked out of the apartment because of this sex marathon with a stranger literally 2 1/2 weeks after I’d moved in; sorry ex-roommate, you had your shit together, and I didn’t, btw your girlfriend was hitting on me while you were at work, and had that other chick not been there you’d have been cuckolded, in case you’re reading this, Mike/Dan/Brian/Albert Pike[?] I don’t know your name, but you’ll remember me as the kid who kept you up until 4AM every night apparently – asshole kicked me out without telling me I was bothering him, and I would’ve kept quiet had I known I was being too loud….), but, literally sex and up to 4 hour long blow jobs everywhere we could find in the apartment and apartment complex, on top of making sex videos she has (uh oh…), recording weird music, going from the first night straight to the jacuzzi & sex in it to the final night of S & M bondage (which I’d never done until then; that shit can be hot…) until we literally ran out of things to try sexually that we were willing to, on top of the fact that I just couldn’t, I was exhausted; but it was like after we did that weird trance exercise she was in a sexual trance for that whole week until she snapped out of it the last night (I’ll attribute it to that, thanks L. Ron!) but if you can get a chick to do this with you for long enough, in a quiet safe space, it’s weird.

dats a lot of work blackbirdyoung, just to make your cokas go splsossozozlzozlozlzozozoz slooogegelsosolzo slspsplooegsgssozlozzlzo

i like slspspslooginssg as mcuch as teh next duded butz i treat it more as a fun quickie thing rtaher thana an eight-hour shift at a afast food restatrauant like mccdolanalds with eherz csuskcing my chicken mcncugegetzz lolool

lolzozlozlz Bernanke is the Architect of the fiat feminist matrix lozlzolzzlzoz in his speech to Neo, he said, “We have desouled millions of women and destroyed millions of men. It is something at which we have become exceedingly efficient.” lozlzozlzolz

It was then that Neo realized that the only way to destroy collectivism, feminism, and the welfare/warfare state, was by showing the American people what had been done in the 1930’s: FDR looted the country’s gold and left to the people a pile of worthless paper, and the government schools had enshrined him as a hero for the better part of a century lozlzolzozlozlz If Neo could get enough people to realize the anti-gold brainwashing they had endured, he could bring back the gold standard–and thus destroy the fiat feminist matrix.

Yeah, but oddly enough the only girls I’ve ever actually been out with are the ones who have messaged me first. Any time I message a girl, the conversation seems to lapse. Mind you I’m atypical in that I don’t send out any more messages than I get. (I don’t claim to be the fittest man in any town this side of Leper Island, but I’m okay looking. Definitely better-looking than the second-best-looking dude in the article, he’s funny-lookin’.)

And y’know, actually, the few girls I have actually bothered to off the internet have been perfectly fine. There are horror stories out there, I’m sure, of crazies or women who don’t look like their pictures at all. The girls I’ve met have all been the 7-8s that their profiles promised, seemed normal, not crazy.

And yet, I’ve never bothered to try to make a second date with any of ’em. For some reason, I always find myself sitting with a moderately attractive woman saying to myself “Y’know, this is a fairly attractive woman, and I can’t see anything wrong with her, but I’m just not feelin’ it right now.”

What’s to blame? I dunno, pheremones? Or just the feeling that any woman you might meet on the internet clearly has *something* wrong with her that she just hasn’t let on yet?

So, I started using a variation of that “are you really a girl?” opener from the other day’s post (a longer version than above, but shorter than the one sent in by the contributor). So far, I have a 100% response rate after trying it on 7 hot girls.

The responses have generally been favorable, only one had any attitude. This is been over two days, so I haven’t spun any to dates yet, but I am still pleasantly surprised at the 100% response rate. Given the number of messages cute chicks get according to the data in this post, that alone is magical.

I had a date with one of the cast members before it came out. I had no idea she got real work, just that she was an actress. It was a strange date. She thought we were fighting the whole time and I thought we were flirting.

Isn’t all this just reflecting real life? Most women won’t message guys (or ask them out in real life) because that is considered to be the “guy’s job”. So all this experiment did was confirm that the societal convention exists both online, and off. Which I thought was understood, but its nice to have it confirmed again from time to time.

[heartiste: that’s true, some of these results are just a reflection of the INNATE predisposition (societal convention has little to do with it at a fundamental level) of women to assume the chasee role. but the disparity in messaged rate between the hottest women and the hottest men is SO GREAT that something else is at work here, and that something else is the lower value that women place on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks. an attractive profile pic just isn’t going to fire up a woman like it would for a man.]

Never understood the distinction between cultural norms an innate nature.

[heartiste: cultural norms don’t spring up out of unseeded ground like the immaculate germination. they evolve to reinforce preexisting biological dispositions.]

Cultural norms are always some reflection of innate, visceral motivations and desires.

[yes.]

After all, they don’t come into existence out of nowhere. Cultural norms aren’t static, but neither is the context in which the human id operates. Not to mention that primal desires and instincts can often be very complicated and even self contradictory.

[you seem to be agreeing with me. women prefer to be chased because their brains are wired in such a way that they receive pleasure from the act of being chased, and psychological disturbance when they overturn their natural instinct by actively chasing. culture can amplify this natural instinct, or it can muffle it, but in the latter case the muffling will not happen without a lot of stress and negative consequences. this is why cultures tend to reinforce preexisting genetic programming. i don’t think there’s a culture in the world where women actively chase after men, although i’m sure some feminist will pipe up about some primitive 100-member tribe in the middle of the jungle where the women “buy” tropical drinks for the men they like.]

heartiste: cultural norms don’t spring up out of unseeded ground like the immaculate germination. they evolve to reinforce preexisting biological dispositions.
———
Look at it from an evolutionary psychology point of view. Up until very recently, people lived in a very hostile environment. A woman in late-stage pregnancy, or who has to deal with a newborn, is effectively helpless. She NEEDS somebody who can be depended upon to take initiative, make good decisions, be able to accurately read people and situations, and be able to “think outside the box” in a crisis. Thus, she has no interest in guys who are not taking the initiative (unless they are truly Uber-Alphas, who would not be in OKCupid in the first place).

She also is looking for capable guys who are especially interested in HER, and so will discard responses that do not indicate that the guy spent much time composing it.

As far as the fact that the second-cutest got the most interest, since guys have to spend effort to contact her, they are going to focus on the cutest girl who they think might be open to being approached by them.

“women prefer to be chased because their brains are wired in such a way that they receive pleasure from the act of being chased, and psychological disturbance when they overturn their natural instinct by actively chasing.”

I’ve noticed that the flipside is true for men, except maybe for omega males and gays. At least, it’s certainly true for me.

I’ve hated being chased by girls when I was a child but as an adult I really don’t mind either way. Chasing can be fun and definitely arousing but sometimes it’s just annoying, especially if the girl isn’t coy and flirty. I’d much rather a girl chase me than sit there like a bump on the log expecting me to handle absolutely everything by myself.

and so they cretaed a great exalted culture to tame da womenz violent pursuit to satiiate her butt tinglesz and gina tinglesz, hihc, left to their won devices, leads cherlotte allen aging neoocnths womenz to repateat tucller math’s lies dat he is six foot tall sucucutheststeuful filmmamker in da neoencth weekly snattndrd as butt tingles and gina tingeles cravings buttt craviens trupm trump a woman’s feebele logic and resoans and ability to use google 4 research and inestaedz tehy just take teh buttehxter at his wordz zlzlzoozlzlzzl zlozzo

the federal reserve bankerzz saw profit in the womenz fundamenta wealth-transffering natrue and so the fed rpormosied to fund and finance unlimeted femailed buttcocking unlimeted femaiaily buttehxting if only women would rwork for the fed in detsoryin tehir faimalaizes and persueucucting tehir husnvaz and drugging up and dowudndumb down their kidz and den da womenz would get fundeingz for unlimeted welfare enitleelteiement assocking sesisosn to satiaaute da womenez’ violent butt tingelllzozllzlozlzozlzozozolozlzlolozoo

“heartiste: cultural norms don’t spring up out of unseeded ground like the immaculate germination. they evolve to reinforce preexisting biological dispositions.”

UNLESS [and until] you get an outfit like the Frankfurt School, which intentionally seeks to twist and sully and pervert the traditional “cultural norms” into something new & different that they can use to destroy an entire civilization.

Now the Frankfurt School guys were steeped in abnormal psychiatry [and remain so, to this day], and they knew exactly which buttons to push in order to unleash holy hell on a society – especially stuff like opening the pandora’s box of unbridled female sexuality resulting in the inevitable female hysteria – ever seen an old movie where the star actually winds up and smacks an open hand across the starlet’s cheek?

Hauling off and slapping a bitch upside the face used to be a standard technique for putting female hysteria in its place [you can think of it as a very inexpensive, low-tech, time-tested version of electro-shock therapy], and yet, if you try it nowadays [after the Frankfurt School has spent a century infiltrating and corrupting and subverting and destroying our legal system], you’ll be looking at 60 to 90 days in jail, and possibly even some felony time in the penitentiary.

Heartiste, aren’t you forgetting something though? Men are hornier than women, our veins are surging with testosterone. There are just far more men trolling online dating sites. These sites are doing everything they can to convince women that they should give it a chance. Look at the data they ask members to fill in: income, height, occupation…these are things women want to know about. If these sites were trying to cater to men, they’d ask for: waist circumference, bra size, sexual position…

“Men are hornier than women, our veins are surging with testosterone.”

The more I learn about women, the less I take this common perception at face value. Women are much hornier than we think. Once the flip is switched on their sexual desire, they lose self-control at least as much as males.

“The more I learn about women, the less I take this common perception at face value. Women are much hornier than we think. Once the flip is switched on their sexual desire, they lose self-control at least as much as males.”

No kidding.

[Although it probably helps a lot if the guy actually knows what he’s doing…]

It’s helpful to have it made visible, since most men never spend enough time around in-demand women to know how much attention they actually get. I remember being blown away the first time I dated a hot girl and realized her friends had no downtime between suitors, because there was a new man hitting on them every week.

I recently had the same experience. 21 year old 8.5 had her cell phone going off every hour with messages from guys that barely knew her at all trying to get her to go out. Every week there were at least 2-3 new guys trying to open her.

As an experiment, I created two fake OK Cupid profiles (nothing as elaborate as this journalist’s ten). I was trying to see what kind of personality profile women responded to more — (a) funny and handsome (but broke), or (b) sincere, rich and overweight.

The sincere rich guy got almost no responses whatsoever, no matter what I put in his profile.

For my “funny” profile, I made a running joke about being a professional jewel thief, and looking for a female sidekick.

The most amazing thing happened when, for that profile, I included a candid photo. It was a paparazzi photo of the actor who is playing the next Superman. Shirtless, bearded, and doing apparently normal active-guy stuff (carrying his boots in the rain). I made sure it was a bit blurry, but you could make out that the guy was extremely fit. (Superman-level fit.)

Within MINUTES, that guy started getting page visits from women. First one or two. Then 20. By the next morning, he had over 100 visitors. Of those visitors, he garnered about 8-10 unsolicited messages in about 3 days. A couple of the messages were overtly sexual (those were from the ugliest women, though).

My advice to OK Cupid users is to (a) get extremely fit, then (b) have someone take a candid, natural photo of you doing something interesting, while shirtless.

Don’t take a photo of yourself in the bathroom mirror. That sort of image screams “validate me!” no matter how athletic you are.

A while back, OKC had a free thing where you could get people to judge your photos for you. Better than hot or not because the were weighed against yourself, not brad from Jersey shore. That could help AFC’s get their rbest side up there

“Almost no guy can attain that level of cut without genes, steroids, and a job where personal appearance is paramount (e.g. actor).”

And they probably top it all off with just a little liposuction – almost no one [this side of Michael Phelps or Ryan Lochte] can lose those last few ounces on the stomach without going full-blown concentration-camp-victim.

And even the concentration-camp-victims can carry some sagging folds of skin..,

I should add that the body of Henry Cavill right there is much rarer than the bodybuilder-type body. Some men can gain a lot of muscle, but at the cost of having a thick neck and a head that looks like a penis. Or, to put it another way, they’d be completely incapable of playing Clark Kent.

The other thing is that even Henry Cavill doesn’t look like Henry Cavill. This is Henry Cavill on a day when he’s been doing six months of training and nutrition *just* for this, the day when he has to film a shirtless scene for Superman. Real people cannot compete.

My fictitious rich profile attracted zero interest on OK Cupid. This was not even directed at 25 year-old hotties (whose instincts have typically not yet kicked in to find their very own Daddy Cash-Drawer), but rather to appeal to older women, who can usually be counted on to lust after money more than six-pack abs.

Second, it’s FAR easier to improve your fitness level than it is to acquire $4 million. I’d say that, in general, any non-disabled man who is not morbidly obese could mold himself into an athletic specimen in the top 10%, in terms of attractiveness for his age group, within 2-6 months. It only takes some basic nutritional and exercise knowledge, along with a commitment to make major dietary changes, and endure 5-10 hours per week of intense exercise. Whoever does what is needed is guaranteed to become highly fit, and eventually even super fit. It’s a matter of cause and effect. It’s scientifically impossible to fail if you actually take the prescribed actions.

Making $4 million is not a guaranteed outcome regardless of who you talk to, no matter how committed you are, or how closely you follow the instructions of knowledgeable people. Unlike fitness, there is no road map that you could give to someone, which (if he follows it) is guaranteed to yield the desired results.

Another point of my comment was to say that, while being highly fit makes you extremely desirable to women, it also matters that you display your fitness level with a casual photo, and NOT a self-photo in the mirror, or a posed photo, which reeks of vanity and thus insecurity.

Having had both, I can draw the solid conclusion that having six pack abs is roughly as attractive to 20-somethings as having $1m in a checking account, and the motivations of women attracted to your physique are much more aligned with your own than are the motivations of the women attracted to your bank account.

Reminds me of the Jeselnik. “My girlfriend came back from the salon in tears. See, they cut TWO inches off and she was crying for hours. I don’t see the big deal — I’m the one who has to find a new girlfriend.”

Women simply don’t send 1st messages because they don’t have to. When you get 20+ emails on the first day you sign up, you are busy reading/responding to them. If you want to know how much looks matter for men, it would be a lot more useful to compare what response rates the guys got to an identical message sent out to women of similar looks and match %.

I think the hottest chicks that are online are on to find something very specific. So, there’s a phenomenon that while you may be bradd pitt or DMX but she wants johnny depp. She’ll contact you. Otherwise, with 100 messages a day, any deviance from the long form application will get your email shitcanned out of sheer annoyance.

[heartiste: this is a good point. hot chicks are less likely to be online in general, because they get plenty of attention offline. this, among other reasons, is why i don’t bother much with online dating.]

I knew one (reasonably-hot at the time) chick who would be on online dating sites mainly as an ego-stroke. She was not interested in actually dating any of these guys — she just got a rush from all the attention she got. And she would only respond to emails from guys who looked like they had actually read her profile — stuff that looked copy/pasted would be immediately deleted.

@ MichaelC
I knew one (reasonably-hot at the time) chick who would be on online dating sites mainly as an ego-stroke. She was not interested in actually dating any of these guys — she just got a rush from all the attention she got.

Only one? A lot of chicks are like that ha ha. I doubt any sane guys are on dating websites only to have their ego stroked. 😀

Much of the internet strokes a woman’s ego-Facebook, internet dating, chatting sites. And as for ChatRoulette, that site should really be renamed CockRoulette. So few women on there it hardly seems a productive use of time.

Many hot women go through periods of Approach Fatigue. This is the reason that there are some truly hot women to be found online… they get a lot of CONTROL over who they talk to. They’ll continue in that mode until they either find someone or get tired of the “Why did you delete my letter without replying?” flak. The hottest women, the ones that will only go dancing at gay clubs because they can’t go to straight clubs without inducing chaos will, occasionally, look for love online.

You seem like a reasonably astute guy, so I’m kind if scratching my had about how you missed this HUGE confounding factor: men generally approach when, not the other way around. As such, number of unsolicited messages received – which is comparable to number of times approached – is going to be heavily, heavily skewed in favor of women simply due to cultural norms. A more apples to apples comparison would be contact rates (messages/unique views) for the women to response rates for the men. If anything, the data shows how rough it is to be an ugly chick.

It does say that during the first 24 hours:
For the hottest girl 1 in 3 sent a message, versus the hottest guy 1 in 10 sent a message.
Hottest girl received 45 messages = 135 views
Hottest guy received 2 messages = 20 views

So a viewing ratio of 6.75 to 1 for the hottest.

At 7 days:
3 of the men – the least hot ones – has a total of 25 views and no messages

Of course we don’t know if there are equal number of girls to guys in the database – probably not.

What I meant by response rate for men was #sent/#received. The comparison you’re making is similar to comparing the number of times a guy gets approached at a bar/club vs a female. The more apt comparison is how many times a female gets approached vs how many females are receptive to the guy’s approaches.

Again, I’m not a believer in the stright cross gender comparison here, but one notable feature here is that when you normalize by the top number of responses for each group (look at % of top message getter of same sex) the difference between the attractive and ugly guys is just as pronounced as it is for females. This jibes with my experience that for men, looks do matter so far as getting a foot in the door (after which game is a necessity). That being said, I agree 100% with the upshot of the post, that to women looks are of less importance. It would be very interesting to see something similar with varying degrees of brashness for male profiles with the same picture.

Ugliest to hottest? Maybe it’s the tiny pictures making me miss something, but I would have put the middle girl and the second-ugliest above the second prettiest girl. Second prettiest looks like a lesbian gym teacher to me.

All the men look unattractive to me. Second-best has a giant chin. Best-looking, well, maybe it’s just that hair that short doesn’t do it for me and other people would find him attractive?

[heartiste: you may be one beholder. but most beholders agree on what is hot and what isn’t. please refrain in future from littering this board with your personal preferences, and go read the experiment at the link provided. the photos were chosen based on agreement among a random panel of judges. exceptions prove the rule.]

We are not any different with regard to men’s looks. Think of a good looking dude who sucks at sports, is a little effeminate and slow witted. If anything it makes it worse. Think of Nick Nolte in 48 hours vs Cape Fear.

We do not really perceive men any differently than they do. We hate pretty boys. We rally around capable men.

one last comment, cracked had an article on more specialized dating sites. Apparently, the std dating site is like a hot chick abattoir (?). All these chicks who fucked that alpha (remember, the piece of shit who got the high school girls to kill each other over him) and got his dick cooties are on there. In plain english, the girls are hot and desperate.

[T]he greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.

If you could design a mass-market dating site from the ground up, using game principles and gender-oriented features to maximize sexual activity its members what would it look like?

My idea was inspired by F. Roger Devlin’s essay about marriage.

I would prevent men from shooting themselves in the foot with boring first messages. They wouldn’t be allowed to flirt or send “winks” or make any first moves. I know this goes against the natural dynamic of real world interaction, but those graphs drive home that the online environment just doesn’t work the same way.

Instead, men would be heavily marketed to the women. Perhaps there would be various contests where men could demonstrate value and creativity. Men would not be isolated, they’d be aware of each other as competition and would step up their game and differentiate themselves.

Meanwhile I’d force the women to commit at each stage of the interaction. Women would have to selections (for example, 5 “winks” per day). Only those 5 men would be able to message her until a timer expires. Additional messages would require more commitment from the woman until the point where, if you’ve exchanged more than 3 or 4 messages, she wouldn’t be allowed to contact any other men for a week.

This might not work– women might be too addicted to easy, okcupid-style adoration. But it might work if the perception was that this site had the highest quality men.

Isn’t that how the normal world works? Men do things they want and create groups to excel and compete among eachother, women see this and find it attractive. All you do now is prevent men from shooting themselves in the foot by showing beta behaviour?

Women making the first move isn’t how it normally works, except for the most blatantly alpha characters. Women committing to anything at all, especially that early in the process, isn’t how it normally works.

The problem with online dating(for both sexes) is that it forces men to become good at online game, which in the grand scheme of life is a huge goddamn waste of energy.

I see no mention of the elephant in the room: the second hottest girl and guy got more attention than the hottest, both in the US and in the UK.
One could speculate about why this is so, but I am more interested in the practical implications:
should I avoid trying very hard to look good? (not that I do)
should I go for girls too hot for this world, confident in the belief that no other man will dare approach them?

[heartiste: there are two ways to look at this.
the rank order is accurate. the second hottest man and woman are really the second hottest according to most people. then we may conclude that there is something to the fact that the 2nd hottest of each sex got more responses than the hottest. this could be because people temper their shots for the moon with a realistic expectation of attainability. will you put more effort into an attainable 7 or an unreachable 8?
OR
the rank order is inaccurate at the high end. when we get into the 8-10 territory, fine gradations begin to swamp large gradations, and we find more disagreement among people as to what qualifies as hot or semi-hot. at the very high end of the looks scale, personal preference starts to assert itself more forcefully, which is why there is usually wide agreement among men on which chicks are ugly and average and cute, but more disagreement over which women are hard 10s. so the fact that the “second hottest” got more responses may tell us nothing, since they could just as easily be the first hottest.
personally, i think both factors are in play. the rank order is accurate, but it’s a little less accurate at the top end. and men and women really do adjust their sights to something just below the absolute best (unless they themselves can get the best). the online data suggests you should shoot for the hottest chicks, because paradoxically they get less attention than the just-hot-enough chicks.]

Obviously I am replying to our distinguished host, not to myself.
I prefer hypothesis #1: most people have an ego of a size much smaller than a planet, and go for a realistic target.
Hypothesis #2 has merit to the extent that the initial ranking was done by a panel of only 3 judges: one must assume that the judges, and not the hundreds of people who sent messages, were unrepresentative.

Not sure that the two hypotheses mix well: if the second ranked is in fact the most attractive, but people go for the second most attractive, then they should go for the top ranked, so we would see no evidence for either hypothesis.

It could be a simple B+ effect. A’s are less approachable, more beta-anxiety-inducing.

Also, the “second highest” mamacita was showing herself in a form fitting tank top (and in color) — the additional information of body type may have leapfrogged her over her toothy sister. In fact, I think the view of her chesticles made her the clear superior over #3, despite the smaller resolution of her face and (possible) man haircut.

Though the dude jokingly presented his study as “science,” trust me, his methodology would not survive peer review. Not the most rigorous of experimental standards.

I agree with Heartiste. Attainability factors into your investment decision. Thus, you often find that the 7s and 8s have had more sexual partners than the 9s and 10s. Also, there is greater disagreement over the fine print of the tail end due to individual preferences.

However, another factor may have come into play. What’s different about the profile pic of number 2? Notice her body? Yup… Out of all the female photos, number 2 was the only one to show skin. And, unless excessive, skin sells–especially when attached to a cute face. Her picture is skankier than number 1’s, allowing you to see more of her body. In other words, she is better showcasing her highest assets: cute face + nice body.

Presentation matters, especially for women. Now, I wonder if the same holds for men. What if we tweak the photos of these guys from generic face shots emphasizing facial symmetry to something that is personality or game driven (e.g., profile pics of a dude rock-climbing or leaning against the wall a la James Dean), maybe the hit rate would be better.

Elephant in the room: The second hottest girl and guy are both ‘white’, whereas the hottest girl and guy are both ‘ethnic’ (definitely the guy, and to a lesser extent but still arguably so for the girl). Read into that what you will.

All of the comments made here and the responses to Aspie Nerd could be developed into an article of its own if it hasn’t already. If it has been an article already, then maybe it’s time to re-visit this subject. I found it fascinating that the 2nd tier woman and man got more responses than the 1st tier woman and man. I like Aspie Nerd prefer hypothesis 1 more because I believe it is more accurate in more cases for what the truth is, but hypothesis 2 does factor in a minority of the time for what the truth is. King A(Matthew King), Marx, BlackCat and samseau had good responses as well. All of these things play a factor.

Good to get a debate going.
A few additional comments:
* Contrary to Black Cat I see the top ranked man+woman as white, but that might be because I grew up and live in a lily-white environment.
* Samseau makes a good point: I had forgotten that the top ranked man+woman were hosted in the same city.
* I believe that hypothesis #2 is true but not an explanation for the results, if you see what I mean: I do NOT believe that there can be a consensus (most men agreeing) on ratings at the very top, but at the same time that does not explain why the woman voted (consensus or not) most attractive, does not receive the most messages.

I regarded all of them as White-Europeans too. If some weren’t they were at the Whitest end of mixed race Latinos(or Hispanic) or Middle-easterners or North Africans. (Side Note: Latinos are not a race but a linguistic cultural group and one can be of any race or mixture thereof and be Latino. Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are Whiter countries than the USA.) Many North Africans, Middle-easterners and Latinos can pass for Europeans especially Southern Europeans as far as looks are concerned. Black Cat was right in the sense that you need to definitely control for all physical variables including race. It might be a better if all of them had the same complexion.

Which city they were hosted in makes a difference too.

I agree with you that number 1 is more accurate than number in that that people will go for the most attractive person they think they can get. Physical beauty can be be very intimidating to most men and women if you are too physically beautiful. However I will not discount number 2 because for me and many men when we see a woman with well shaped large breasts its a very attractive physical attribute, but with other men it is not as an example. Some men prefer well shaped large bums(very popular among Black- Americans and to a lesser extent Latino-Americans) while others prefer well shaped legs. Nearly all men prefer a pretty face in my experience.

Chile has about 5-15% Whites – the rest are largely Mestizo
Argentina is largely a White/Indio mix, about 60/40 – though Buenos Aries may have a large percentage of Whites
Uruguay is the Whitest Latin American country, with marginally more White mixture than Argentina.

OTOH, the US Whites are about 97% White. White in Latin America is NOT the same as White in the US.

This numbers are more or less ok. (Probabily the biggest descripency is with Argentina, but it is certain that Argentina is not less than 3/4s white, which makes it whiter still than the United States.

Than there are those caribean countries whi claim to be white but which probabily are not:
Cuba – 65%
Puerto Rico – 70%
Costa Rica ~ 55%

Cuba and Puerto Rico are certainly much less whiter than that, Costa Rica may indeed be half white or so, though I’m not sure.

If you doubt that Argentina is not white enough, a recent genetic study showed that 50% of the Argentinean population was completeley white, with no African or Amerindian traces in their genome. They are probabily of recent (100 years) immigrant background.

There were 5 million European immigrants to Argentina from 1850 up to 1950. It may not seem much from an American perspective, and yes, the majority were men but this five million immigrants had a bigger proportional impact on the country than did the much more millions of immigrants to the U.S. during the same time. Because Argentina had much less population.

European ancestry among individuals that declared all grandparents born in Europe was 91% (95%CI: 88–94%) compared to 54% (95%CI: 51–57%) among those with no European grandparents (p less than 0.001).

So 9% of people were lying about their grandparents European ancestry, or else there is a high rate of cuckolding in Argentina.

[heartiste: i love how these ancestry arguments always end up with the insulted native of country X asserting that the % of his white blood is higher than foreigners assume. it’s almost as if being white had some sort of cachet among citizens of (non-Western) nations.]

I find it amusing as well. But just as long as the “insulted native’s” claim is outrageous.
By the way, I am not a native of Argentina. I am Portuguese. I have never been to Argentina or to the Americas. I never left Europe. So, I was not asserting the percentage of my white blood.
What I think is dangerous is how some people are completely oblivious as to how much some South American countries can be “Western” if by Western we mean of European character and Civilisation/culture.
My whole argument is: If we consider that Spain is Western, or of European Civilisation, then if Spain was situated somewhere in Latin America it wouldn’t cease to be Western or of European Civilisation simply because of its geographical position.

If Spain is Western/European or not is an whole different argument. I argue yes, but maybe you mean Anglo-Saxon when you say Western/European. And that would be a question of semantics.
I just think it is dangerous to not consider majority white countries overwhelming European in culture (more than the U.S. I’d argue) as western.
I’ve been focusing and thinking on these issues because I am planning to do my master degree thesis on European Cultural Studies and my main point ought to be how the American (U.S.A.) culture (social and political) has become deviant from the mainstream of “Western Civilisation”, and by Western I really mean European, from Ireland and Portugal up to Russia (traditional, not Sovietic Russia).
I want to compare European tradition (divided into Anglican-Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox religions) and compare it to countries of European settlement, dividing them into three types of countries: Culturally European countries (Uruguay and Australia), culturally non European countries (South Africa and Mexico) and Culturally deviant countries, which would be countries in which there is a strong culturally European element and a strong culturally non European element as well (Brazil and the United States).
But maybe I’ll just do the thesis focusing on the mutual dependency of the European countries even without an European Union (with the eventual exception of Russia).

You Guy,
You’re not very bright are you? And you don’t understand the basic foundations of genetics, do you? That’s okay, now learn a liitle…
If I have a country in which 50% of the population is 100% white, and the other half is 100% Amerindian. I would have a country which is 50% white, but which has a lot of individuals of pure European stock.
I have studies (RELIABLE STUDIES) which claim that Argentina is a little more white than that:
FIRST, this one from 2010: http://dienekes.blogspot.pt/2009/12/new-comprehensive-study-on-continental.html
This study focuses on finding the average mix of Argentineans, which you say is 60% white and 40% Amerindian.
This study tested a random sample of the Argentinean population from various regions of the country which they considered representative of the whole population. It consisted of whites, mestizos and a few native Indians.
They didn’t test only paternal (ydna) markers (the father of the father of the father) or maternal (mtdna) markers (the mother of the mother of the mother), but the whole genome: They tested autosomal markers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosome ) and this is what they found:
The average genetic contributions to the Argentinean bloodlines/dna is:
78,6% European
17,3% Amerindian
4,1% African

Another study, http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html
from the PC University of Buenos Aires who intended to prove that all Argentineans are mixed race, proved indeed that more than the 15% of Argentines who are considered mestizos had some (some, does not mean significant) Amerindian ancestry.
However, they only found Amerindian markers in 56% of the population.
Meaning that, as much as 44% of the Argentines are of pure European background.
(Due mainly to the overwhelming wave of immigration: 1850-1950 = +5 million Europeans to a country that in 1914 had 30% of its population born in Europe and in the 1960s had only 20 million inhabitants)
No way 44% of Americans in the United States are of pure European background.
And me, as well as most Europeans, wouldn’t consider some of the fat anglo-amerindian slobs from the trailer park to be wholly European. Nor that dog whisperer guy.

Thus, Argentina is whiter than the United States, although the United States has a larger percentage of blonde haired and/or blue eyed people.

[heartiste: i love how these ancestry arguments always end up with the insulted native of country X asserting that the % of his white blood is higher than foreigners assume. it’s almost as if being white had some sort of cachet among citizens of (non-Western) nations.]

I’m reminded of a hot looking girl I knew, whose mother was Native American/German and father Phillipino/African-American, she had very tanned complexion and wide cheekbones, and something of the Tiger Woods look, only a little lighter complexion.

She was dating an Afro-Brazilian (very dark black) guy, and she tells me that he said, she was the first Blanca (aka White) he had dated?! So she tells him her ancestry, and that she always saw herself as colored and associated with Black people. So he tells her she is definitely White, and would definitely be seen as White in Brazil…

I’ve never spent money on okcupid, just on drinks. I’ve had experiences go both ways, before I was smart enough to filter out girls who didn’t have photos clearly showing themselves not fat. I’ve had girls show up heavier and plainer than I expected, but I’ve also had girls show up and be far more attractive than they’d looked in their photos.

I’m actually surprised at how few women try to use outdated photos, although it does happen sometimes. Lots of women will be shy and only show headshots, angle shots, or far-away shots, but few will be overtly deceitful.

I got a few responses with a free site about 8 years ago to my profile, but when I looked at who was responding, It was hardly worth the no money I spent. I was basically just wondering what they were thinking. I supposed that I would do better doing the chasing of course, but I figured if they are far away, may as well be in Eastern Europe. Otherwise just do local in person. The only thing to do on line is for over seas stuff since your SMV is high and time is short.

When you go over there. Its the only reason I would go on-line. Obviously time is limited if you are not planning to settle down. However if you are, I’d bet 1 month in Eastern Europe would give you those prospects more than 1 year in the states. But why do it in the US at all is what I am talking about? I suppose if you travel in the US it might have some use.

all the women were 20+ lbs heavier and five years older then the pics in their profiles

Seems unlikely. Women don’t necessarily go to those sites for the reasons men do, out of a sense of desperation or lack of options, though doubtless many do. I can see genuinely marketable chicks hiding there for safety reasons and insecurities. As the study demonstrates, it’s a cheap, quantitative ego trip for nearly all women up and down the spectrum, especially when, say, a break-up has got her down.

Even the hottest girls need pick-me-ups from time-to-time. They’re all emotional basketcases, remember. In a hypersexualized market-place, raise that insecurity a power or two. Plus, princesses at the peak of their sexual value seek some control over the unwieldy harvest of attention she reaps without effort. Compartmentalizing it all onto a web page gives her the illusion of managing her love life.

yes. yes you should talk to the hottest women. remember- beautiful women have cheekbones that they had to grow into, and probably braces. self- image is formed in junior high. they were gawky colts. they still feel that way. they think you are way cooler than anyone they could ever aspire to.

it’s the mingier-looking, cheaper looking girls that don’t have great bones to grow into that are confident. they weren’t tall or gawky, or anything above average, ever.

The only problem for me with this test is that the hottest girls do not seem to be break 7.
For a hot girl (8, 9, 10) with a full body shot – there should be waaay more messages – at least if my sister’s experiment is anything to go on.

Also, if the hottest guy,was displaying a mean/tough demeanor, I wonder how many more messages he would have received.

Forget all the nitpickery and subtle criticisms of method. What the unscientific, soft-sociology “Cupid on Trial” piece hammers home is the disparity of volume.

Men already intuit that there is a distinct attention gap between the sexes, even after controlling for attractiveness, both physical and otherwise. So the study is a confirmation of the conventional wisdom in that sense.

But what’s hard for men and ugly broads to fathom is the 10-, 50-, and 100s-to-1 disproportion, which ruins the possibility of intersexual comparison. Top-shelf women must be gauged by an entirely different metric from both their ugly stepsisters and top-shelf men. Whereas men get few enough unsolicited approaches to treat them individually, women have to deal with theirs in bulk. Add to that women’s more complicated analysis of attraction and their lesser capacity of cognition, and you can see a dynamic of confusion ripe to be exploited.

What made his “perfect message” marginally successful was his demonstration of virtue rather than his mere boasting about it. Those strange people attracted to online dating also seem to be the ones straightforward enough to believe that their own self-reported quality should be taken at face value. This also explains the importance of pictures: a photo is the only element of the profile that relies least on a person’s honesty and/or power of self-description, and it is therefore the most reliable indicator of quality for both men and women.

The study makes me want to fuck around on websites like those, just for shits and giggles. If that dude’s “perfect message” generated a hamster dash so easily, what fun could be had with an exchange of actual depth that riffed off the knowledge of her hidden desires? “I don’t know you but could you possibly hide a gun for me?” “Seriously, what’s up with the earlobes?” etc. Then after a minute the notion passes.

Pof has always been a curiosity for me to that extent. Luckily I have friends who themselves are “experimenting” on okcupid/Pof with similar ridiculous opening messages.

And it works. Maybe more of my buddies are experimenting cause were getting older, but if yOu piqué her curiousity, the attraction is yours to lose. And most good openers don’t work out because they’ve said something minutely offensive during the messaging pre-date.

That’s the one issue friends have universally faced – women will stop messaging back on a whim.

It’s to this reason why I think hot guys have it easier than hot girls.

Yes – use a different metric on the number of approaches – the women have to sort through so much that they generally won’t even find mr right. Hot Guys on the other hand, will have a smaller and more manageable bundle of desirable women to choose from – he generally has the cute girls who pursued him, and girls he himself approached.

There is much to be said about how poor our decision making gets when presented with two many options. High value men get the opportunity of his choice in female and the ability to screen out personality too. Whereas high value women have to rely on the shoddy artifice of a man’s reputation or fame in a paradigm not much different than random choice.

I’ll probably be disagreed with but a 10/10 guy has more freedom to stray from his mate than a 10/10 girl who has fallen head over heels for a guy. Sometimes she’s “stuck” with just one guy.

No doubt that being at the top of the male food chain beats being at the top of the female food chain. These days, a big percentage of the time, the 10/10 guy doesn’t even really have to stray – his main girl brings other girls around for him.

The conclusion I reach from this is quite simply that online dating is a total waste of time for men. I have a strong suspicion that the use of online dating with hot women is very low to begin with. Online dating is like trying to play in a casino where the deck is stacked against you, yeah you could win but you should probably look to go somewhere else.

Online has been good to me, and I don’t stand out physically, and I’ve never lied about my age or anything else on those sites. Now I’m mainly on the pseudo prostitution – OK, and actual prostitution sites – but back when I was on other sites, I still did well, though not on the most popular sites like match.com. I even scored some serious easy and off-the-hook sex on adultfriendfinder a few times – at least 4 I can think of offhand, but we’re talking about stuff where I show up at a chick’s and she ready to fuck, or the first date is a peep show.

Maybe the time has passed for it, but I still have to think the top shelf guys aren’t on those sites, and it allows at least some interaction with hot chicks that are at least ostensibly looking.

women receive far more responses than men, proving that women have far higher standards of physical attractiveness, not the opposite. that means guys considered average and below are shit out of luck, “game” or no “game.”

I think Anonymous is onto something here. Last year OKCupid released results of a survey which said that a massive 80 percent of men were rated as “below average” in looks by female users. I’ve put the links below.

I wonder if this is true in the real world or if online dating attracts women who want some sort of fantasy mates and are less likely to contact men, since they have princess syndrome. If so, this could be adding to the male-female contact disparity above.

I do believe girls on online dating sites are more particular by nature, irrespective of being approached so much. With the amounts hot chicks get hit on, they shouldn’t really have to add that to their repertoire. I have found, for instance, a disproportionate number of short girls that want really tall guys, and women looking for guys a lot younger than they are, or with a range mainly younger that barely overlaps their own age.

Bullshit. I nabbed a Russian chick off a try hard greater beta sociopath with above average looks even though I looked like an obese homeless bum at the time through stoicism alone. We were on a college field trip. I grabbed a ride with the prof and the chick (they spent the whole drive yapping like old women). Then when we got there the guy grabbed her and told me to buzz off. By the end of the trip I was eating with the girl and the guy showed up at our table hat in hand asking me if he could sit there with us.

Tartarus is right. Women are controlling supply, but it’s not because they’re making smart choices. The truth is that they’re making dumb choices and either they get removed from the market too easily by dumb providers, or they fancy themselves as sluts and think that they are being progressive when they’re dispensing their sexuality like confetti. Either way, women are getting their needs met, and men are incorrectly perceiving the subsequent shortage of women as women being choosy. Let’s get this one thing straight… choosiness has nothing to do with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are not choosy… they are dominated by a rationalization hamster that predisposes them to ridiculous, reflexive and impulsive choices.

Choices which continue to be subsidized. So now we have Obamacare, eliminating gender rating, female birth control co-pays, etc. Every guy who has a hard time getting laid will be subsidizing the pregnancies of the thug-fuckers, which is basically all of them until they are almost out of eggs.

Felt it was necessary to chime in that I find these results not at all surprising.

I got bored at one point (I’m a huge introvert so I can go on some dry spells, being that I literally don’t like going out to social events for months) so between GFs I reactivated an account. I added some good pictures of me (I’m a pretty good looking dude, a 7 from honest girls I know. I’ve also had multiple 7-8’s tell me I was “so hot”, but those are outliers as far as I’m concerned). I wasn’t even doing anything particularly exciting, but I just looked good/happy/in shape. I also made my entire profile a sarcastic as shit haiku mocking online dating.

I got 3 messages in the first day from some absolute dregs (25-30 chubbers) who loved my unique profile. Also, the only girl I bothered messaging wrote back quick. But overall, after 2-3 weeks I received dick all for responses, and the ones worth my time (6+) usually didn’t write back (though they would view the profile). Usual message was short neg of something in the profile, but this was mostly before I discovered game.

But the amount of fat chicks on there was gross, and I found a new girl to bang so back to disabled land it went.

I’ve since moved to a much more active/young metro area (burb outside of NYC), and though I’m seeing a couple of girls atm I wouldn’t mind reactivating to see what kind of results I’d have in a much higher populated area.

After moving, I have no problem saying this – logistics/location is everything.

Interesting you got the fat ones. I got hit on by older women — way older women, like ones almost my mother’s age. What surprised me is that they had strict age criteria in their profiles, then broke the very rules they set for themselves. I’m sure that’s a metaphor for American womanhood.

Anyway, I found most women I spoke with had some “secret” beyond what they were telling, be it a kid, a (serious) disability, or a very dysfunctional past. After getting to know a few people online, I just removed the profile. Strange. I agree location is everything, which is why any college aged guy reading this should look upon campus as nirvana.

Given the amount of time I have to invest in an internship I really have to give props to anything actually dating with a real 9-5 or 8-7(what im on) or whatever ridiculous amount of hours worked.

It really stresses the importance of day game approaches. Hell, even if you can spend 15 minutes of your lousy 30-60 minute lunch break chatting up with ONE measly girl…… You’re more successful with that one girl than you’d be with 10 different girls on a dating site. It’s ridiculously easier to screen out problems or secrets wen you are talking with them in person – many times they accidentally let it Freudian slip.

The two virtual fat fucks in the experiment (girl and guy) should be ashamed to put their disgusting picture in public for others to see.
When you’re that hideously fat, the only way to maintain a shred of dignity is to stay home until you die of a big fat heart attack, or engage in a low-carb diet.

Disgusting, hideous fat fucks.

(Note that I’m blaming the guy too, because even if a moderately or even severely overweight dude can still maintain a humane appearance and be in a better place than a similarly overweight cow, a morbidly obese fat fuck is as worthless as his landwhale counterpart)

I’m fat and have been contemplating suicide for a few weeks now. This is all the encouragement I need to actually do it. I was hoping game could help me turn my life around, but I see its pointless.
Bye.

Yeah, a ketogenic diet is really the only thing that ever helped me lose weight, but not a regular keto diet. The only diet that ever worked for me was a protein sparing modified fast. Basically the only nutrition you take in is one gram of high quality protein per pound of your target weight, plus electrolytes. That and walking helped me lose about a pound and a half a week (after the initial loss of water weight, which I don’t count), which is about what normal diets are supposed to do. It makes me wonder if there is something biologically screwed up with me.

There are a lot of holes in the method. However, it’s worth noting that the experience a typical person can expect using okcupid is NOT best represented by controlling for number of active members of each sex. If okcupid was plagued with an overabundance of hot women (say, 10 gorgeous women for every 1 man) the results would look a lot different. But, that’s not the world we live in.

The fake profile fat chick? She represents 50% of American women in most states, and the percentage is rapidly rising. Something needs to be done to combat all of these fat mother fuckers eating everything in sight, ruining the human genepool.

Worst part is I feel like these are the women I have the most problems with. I never have a cute slender babe giving me any issues, whether I’m dating her or flirting with her or even getting rejected by her.

Add about 50 lbs (!!!) and all bets are off. I think the issue is dissonance. I’m guessing fat women hate men for this reason.

They KNOW they should lose weight, but twy can’t be motivated when they *still* get proffers from men, some even being hot.

Overweight females must be really confused in this day and age. They know they can’t extract commitment from a desirable man, but they can get his passion for one night.

I’m doing my part to rectify the situation by mever hitting on fat chicks, and more importantly, calling them out on their behavior. The fat pigs squeal the loudest, as many 21-29 year old guys have unfortunately discovered.

The fake profile fat chick? She represents 50% of American women in most states, and the percentage is rapidly rising. Something needs to be done to combat all of these fat mother fuckers eating everything in sight, ruining the human genepool.

If you want to go down the marriage road get a rock solid prenup. That means before you set a date you get a lawyer, you get her a lawyer, have the whole thing written up, videograph her signing it and have her lawyer or some third party (retired judge for example) ask her on video if she understands the conditions. And beware that the government can invalidate any contract you sign years after the fact. Keep gaming her till one of you dies.

Or, just think that the fact that you found a good one is evidence that you’ll do so again. And again. And again.

If you can effectively hide your assets that’s even better, although the IRS might object to that, even if it’s all above board the added scrutiny would require that you have a ton of assets. It might be smarter just to keep things like houses and cars in the name of a trustworthy family member.

Asset protection is a complex matter. Putting your assets in the name of a trustworthy person might sound like a good idea (if you really really really trust that person), but that will expose you to that person’s life contingencies (bankruptcy, lawsuits especially in a highly litigious country like the US or… divorce).

There’s no need to engage in a complex pattern of trustees and panamean shell companies, except if you reach the 3, 4, 5 million $ mark. But even if you have few assets, it’d be wise to discuss asset protection with qualified tax and estate planners.

Astute businessmen seldom own a second house or car in their name. In this era of big government, almighty IRS, ass-raping lawsuits and easy divorce theft, the right to private property is jeopardized. Asset owners would be smart to educate themselves about trusts and shell companies.

But you’re right, offshore trusts are a risky move if you don’t want to face the wrath of the irs. But there are cases where they can be useful. A domestic trust is better suited for most cases.

The problem with hiding your assets is that it is a huge gamble. If she doesn’t find out about them, great. If she does, then your prenup goes out the window since full disclosure of all assets is required for it to be valid.

Isn’t the second guy better looking than the first guy? He looks more masculine, where the first is prettier.

Anyways, I’m better looking than the middle guy and have gotten a decent amount of women mailing me, of course most of them were fat and worthless. Unless you’re a male 8 or above in terms of looks then you might as well stay off dating sites.

I’d amend that to say you should have a main profile picture that is 8 or above, and you have to aggressively send messages. Personally my main profile pic is from 2006 and scored higher than 8 on that rating thing they had awhile back. My secondary pictures are recent and accurate. If girls care, they haven’t mentioned it. My age is getting to the point where the 2006 picture looks a bit incongruent so I may need to change it, but hopefully I will transition away from using okcupid altogether anyway sometime soon…

And again… action shots that DHV are far superior to static shots that just reveal your looks.

“It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time.”
Really? surely not,I’ve known women who quite freely do this.

[heartiste: yes, really. most women cannot fuck two or more men concurrently for very long. this is not to say women aren’t capable of fucking around on the side, (like during their ovulatory weeks), but when they do so they generally withdraw their sexual favors from the less favored of their multiple men.]

Just for lulz, in the late ’90s, before the FBI took all the fun away, I went into an online chat room, run by Mindspring. I started writing stupid sentences, each punctuated with a dozen exclamation points.

I was asked if I was male or female? I wrote “Female!!!!!!!!!!!!!”. I was asked how old was I? I wrote “13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”. I was asked what was I doing here? I wrote “I’m on my dad’s computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.

Holy fuck.

My inbox melted down with requests for private chat rooms. I had a man, claiming to be a Navy SEAL, for instance, contacting me a week later, professing his undying love for me. Ha ha.

I guess my point is add a young teenage (or preteen girl) into the mix (in the online dating experiment), above, and “her” inbox will meltdown in 5 minutes or less. “She” will make the alpha females, in the experiment above, look like old crones, in terms of interest from men. And this reaction would be universal in all times and cultures. There is DEFINITELY something universal and genetic going on. It’s just that our politics has suppressed it.

Other examples:
– Also, in the 1990s, some woman at work had brought in a Cosmo magazine. She had it out on a table. I was flipping through it. Read one of the quizzes. One of the questions, in the quiz asked to men, was “If you could have sex with a 15 year old girl, and get away with it, would you?”. 85% of men said yes.

– I was at a strip club, on the Block, in Baltimore, years ago. The bar/club was full of men and, of course, old whores. The men were pretty bored. Then some guy walks in, with what looked like his beautiful16 year old daughter (cute brunette). Nuclear detonation in the room. Men were springing up out of their chairs and running up to talk to her and, I guess, get her whatever she wanted. The whores, watching the scene unfold, were incredulous. Ha ha.

I know. Derb said it a single time and most innocuously, and they still crucified him for breaking the silence, as though a failure to hysterically condemn such crimethink would trigger the Rise of The Pedophiles.

The more that men are asked to deny this potent urge, the more it will “nuclear detonat[e]” when given the slightest opportunity. It sneaks up on men who have been told their entire life that acknowledging an attraction to maturing and recently mature girls is the first slip down the slope to molesting toddlers. So the urge goes deep underground, beneath our detection, where there are no barriers to precisely the vicious escalation the hysteria lobbies fear.

The only way to control oneself is through a familiarity with one’s subterranean temptations. Now stifle every outlet through zero-tolerance, and the pressure just builds to an explosion point.

The fact is, a girl between menarche and age 25 is at the peak of her beauty. And, at the younger scale of that range they have the added feature of being at the most innocent, unspoiled, and manipulable. We can’t eliminate this optical fact of nature by screeching ideology. Incentives have to be realigned, and for a great many men, the hysteria is not incentive enough, especially as men become conscious of the lie.

Better experiment, illustrating a woman’s interest in men. Post a fictitious financial net worth under each man’s picture, where the heaviest guy is a billionaire (inheritance from old money). His message inbox should melt down in a matter of minutes.

I’ve used online dating, and generally had a good (and profitable) experience with it.

For me, it was like a fishing line that I put out there, working for me while I was at work, or at clubs gaming on chicks. I’d send out short messages to chicks (maybe 10 a day) in the morning (often while I was taking a shit). Then I’d go to work, and then often go out on a date or to a club in the evening. After I went out, I’d come home and check my messages and go from there.

If you approach it like a part-time job this way, it can pay off. My profile had about 20,000 views, I sent/received about 5,000 short messages/winks, I had 2,000 longer exchanges back-and-forth, went out with 200 of them, fucked about 50 of those, had 3 relationships result from it all.

You definitely still need game to succeed.but if you have some game at all, you should be able to get some decent lays.

we all know women do not value looks as much as us men do but this experiment does not reall prove it..i know if i got 10s or hundreds of new emails each week i’d go through all the hot ones first, and then the semi-hot with interesting openers second,still no luck? only then would i start contacting myself..
a lazy email to the HB10 might be worth it but generally the time-for-pussy ratio is much better on the HB8 that initiated contact.

The best way to get attractive desirable women is not online, and not random PUA shit during the day. The best way is to be part of a social network that includes hot women. Now this isn’t always that easy to do. But making friends, male and female, that have access to hot women is the best way to get them. In large cities, women are much more likely to date/hook up with a guy they are familiar with from somewhere, whether he’s her friend’s cousin or her former classmate’s coworker, etc. Women like familiarity in some way.

Good point. It lowers their defenses, removes an obstacle. With the added advantage of being pre-vetted.

On the other hand, it might give off too much of a “safety” vibe that women say they are attracted to but truly are not. And, there is no such thing as male-female friendships, so your introducer might be a subtly subversive complicating factor.

Two steps forward, two steps back.

But PUA.com subscribers don’t focus on unorthodox methods like you suggest. Why would one go through the trouble of networking when one can just bruteforce grind his way through fifty rejections, five maybes, and a close? Simpler, more direct, easy to grasp, like working on an assembly line.

There is too much artistry, not enough 16-step methodology in your observation. If it doesn’t work for the lowest common denominator and can’t be packaged into a seminar weekend, it will automatically be ridiculed by the dogmatic types who troll these places.

There is no such thing as male-female friendships? What the hell dude-I have female friends. My friend’s wife, a former coworker, a woman I met off the internet who I didn’t hit it off sexually with but still find her fun. If you think the only women in your life have to be women you have sex with you need to adjust your thinking.

From age 10 to 110 they have the same proto-tingle waiting to be coaxed out by the right man, and that always interferes with friendship rightly understood (i.e., similar to the friendship among men).

But I suppose you are correct. Those women can be friends with a certain kind of little-brother type who “does nothing” for her. I haven’t met many of those completely shut-off girls, except lesbians and pregnant women. And even lesbians aren’t 100% immune, depending on how long and deep her rug-gnawing experience goes. (And even pregnant women…)

That’s not to say any man will “hit it off sexually” with every woman, but there is an ember in every girl that a man is always in the process of either dousing or enflaming. And that potentiality at best complicates friendship, at worst makes it impossible.

Come on, be honest. Is it you who doesn’t want a hummer from your “wife’s friend,” or is it she who doesn’t want to deliver it? The feeling can only be mutual in a sexless circumstance, such as in the company of other men, between hideous omega-people, or deep into menopause.

I’d disagree, I’d say most men would prefer a socially mediated contact with attractive women as there is less psychic pain in approaching and getting blown out. Fifty rejections for one yes is brutal in and of itself, which is why most men can’t do it. Too much psychic pain.

That Haitian face-eater on bath salts in Miami met his girlfriend by shouting at her in a passing car and getting her number. Needless to say that’s not something most guys are willing to do. They can however pull off aloof, cocky-funny, here and then good-bye within a social circle. Who was that masked man?

“”Third, female choosiness means that the rate of online female messaging is not as indicative of men’s SMV as online male messaging is indicative of women’s SMV.””

Yes, online dating is like hunting for truffles, you end up rooting through a lot of shit.

And regardless of the quality of the women, if i do send a photo, regardless of the rapport or teasing I’ve built up, almost 50 per cent will write back saying: ‘you’re old, bald….sorry you’re not my type…” etc.

I don’t take this personally because in “real life” i meet chicks of varying ages and this year have banged 6 different chicks only one of which I met online—and who is cute.

I was on one called RSVP in Australia, when you did a search you could see when each person was last active, ie “Last active today” or yesterday, 2 days ago etc.

As you scrolled through the search results there would be about 80-100 women who were actively searching that day. I got curious and looked at how many men in the same age group were active that day, the number exceeded 1000!

That was when I realised the odd were stacked against me and gave up internet dating.

10-1 odds? Not the best but not insurmountable. Like the guy wrote, with so many guys saying the same lame shit, might as well just assume half those guys don’t have a prayer. 5 to 1 odds? What the hell not too bad-you will never get 1 to 1 odds

I wrote the Cupid on Trial article. Just wanted to say thanks for the really detailed, interesting write-up you’ve done on it.

For the record, I am a liberal but not a fan of feminism. It was fun reading about your thoughts on the article from a game POV, because of how heavily into the game and writing about it I’ve been over the years. I wrote eBooks and courses and stuff on attraction and seduction for several years, mostly classic MM stuff with a few bells and whistles.

I think I probably was too even-handed with my summary, looking back on it. To say men and women have it about equal isn’t exactly fair, although I did qualify that statement by saying that reaching a proper long-term, pair-bonded relationship is probably a similar ball-ache for both sexes, when all is considered. I stand by that. Men have their obstacles, women have theirs.

Online dating is normal dating on crack, or speed, or something. Women are more the gatekeepers to sex than ever and men are expected to be the wooers as much, or more than, usual. However, as you say in your write-up, that doesn’t mean men are screwed; you can beat out 95% of the other guys online just by not telegraphing extreme low value from your profile, photos and first messages.

The ‘perfect message’ I wrote is a bit too long and contrived to actually be considered perfect. I think it certainly has some good ingredients in it, mostly not asking anything of the recipient, demonstrating intelligence and creativity, assuming the sale (as you said). Personally I detest a lot of game-y opener messages I see in forums, and some of the ones I’ve seen in the comments here. To me they come across as blatant subversions of the messages men usually send, so much so that – if I was the woman receiving them – I’d instantly spot them as attempts at negging the shit out of me, DHV’ing and so on. But maybe that’s because I’m on the male side of things and used to reading about openers and stuff.

I used OKCupid myself for about 4 months in late 2011. It was fun playing about with my profile and messages and seeing the results. Funnily enough, the thing that seemed to make the biggest difference (to receiving unsolicited messages) was included a photo with my shirt off and the line “Me in my birthday suit, plus jeans” under it – despite OKTrend’s research advising against topless shots.

if I was the woman receiving them – I’d instantly spot them as attempts at negging the shit out of me, DHV’ing and so on

Even if this weren’t the classic case of thinking that women think like men (much less game-educated men!), you’d be wrong about female response. That’s the beauty of the neg. Women don’t hate them the way we hate them. They like negs, they involuntarily react to the subtlety of the quasi-insult and sometimes even appreciate its artistry, and they respond positively toward managed put-downs, albeit privately.

Only feminists think that women do not crave being put in their place by the man who can do it right. They shit-test us to figure out who is up to the challenge and whom they can safely ignore. Neg-test, test-neg, neg-test. It’s a lovely, fast-paced tango.

Get back in the game, brother. Your study was tight and well-written. You sound like a smart dude who can explain what you see, despite that liberal millstone you’re carrying around your brain. Not sure it’s possible to square your leftwingery with anti-feminism, but I for one am willing to hear the case.

Permutations of the prevailing dogma are always intensely self-involved and, even if you make it to the end, completely ineffectual. I think you will know what I mean. Like the founder of amerika.org, or how Adbusters seems to be neutral but just beneath the surface pulsates with the same old leftist hysteria.

The egalitarian lie is a template into which all phenomena are forced. See above: men have their obstacles, women theirs. Great. Everything is still equal, so I guess we’re “all” equally responsible, etc.

1) I’m wondering what proportion of the women are just window-shopping, and do not have any real intent to find someone;
2) This follows on from my pet theory that I’ve raised before, that is, that women get removed from the market very easily, to commit themselves to LTRs (at least serial monogamy), and this skews the laws of supply and demand such that it creates a shortage of available women.

Women have traditionally always had fewer partners than men. This will pan out if we accept that women fall into two broad camps… sluts versus the marrying kind. The sluts will fuck anyone, and the marrying kind will marry the first dude that submits to an extended, drawn-out courtship. Extend this reasoning to women’s urgency to be paired. Traditionally, women hate hate hate being single. So it makes sense that they’re easily removed from the market. Indeed, it also makes sense that they might choose an ugly man over a studly, because ugly, average men are less likely to stray (or so goes hamsterian logic). It doesn’t pay them to look a gift-provider in the mouth.

Remember that women are marketable within a very narrow age-band compared to men. So if women between the ages 18 and 30 are marketed to men between the ages 18 and 50, then you will have a shortage of women, and so they will be controlling supply. And then think about the pressure this places on women not only in terms of their biological time clock, but also in terms of their viability… their first priority (traditionally speaking) would be to commit, and find a steady provider (I don’t know what the market is like these days).

Bottom line? I reckon a lot of these gals are just window-shopping. Maybe even on the sly, so that their resident chump provider doesn’t get to find out about it. Quite simply, they’re leaving their options open. Sweet, loving and loyal my arse.

I’ve also conducted an analogous experiment some years ago (posing as a female), and got so many hits that I just couldn’t bear it, turning down all these lovelorn dudes, so I pulled the profile after one day. Online dating is a world of difference depending on whether you’re a man or a woman.

“We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Just as a social experiment of my own, I decided to make a fake okcupid account of my own. Nothing out of the ordinary thus far. It’s been up for 24 hours or so. The girl that I chose is about an eight (check for “girl_b_chillin”) and I (she) is hardly ever on, yet she’s gotten over 30 unsolicited emails in a day.

I would say that the majority of them are pretty bad, but here’s a couple of ones you can shake your head at:

“Hey my names Andrew, I thought i’d just shoot you a message and break the ice and see whats going on?”

“Hello, you might hear it a lot, but you are very pretty. I would marry you.”

“Hey how are you? First I just wanted to introduce myself my name is Buck and you’re page really caught my eye, I think we could have a lot in common and I’d like to get to know you. I’m not going to be like some of the douchebags on here and just send you a message saying “you’re hot” you know you’re an attractive girl and you don’t need me or anyone else to tell you that. Like I said before I’d like to get to know you but if you aren’t interested I understand and thank you for taking the time to read this message.”

“Well Good Day Mademoiselle,

Very interesting notes! Enjoyed reading it and spot on for all what you’ve mentioned.

You love to travel, If you may please my lady, what was your favorite last place you’ve been to? Sounds like you’re a fun person who knows how to enjoy life and how to be a regular girl

I apologize if there was any form of inconvenience on my behalf my lady … Have a pleasant day.

Merci Beaucoup”

“What is your ideal boyfriend?”

Anyways, you get the point. Maybe I should do this online thing. My game ain’t great, but looks are a strong suit and I know I can’t do any worse than these guys on first impression.

Online dating is a waste of time for average dudes trying to score, at least with a hottie. If you look like tyler durden and you work some cocky funny, sure you could probably clean up. Personally I feel uncomfortable messaging half my community asking if they’re a girl, especially if they know it’s me with my face on my profile.

I’ve had a two scores on craigslist, one with an 8. The best ones are finding girls who are new in town for college and want to be shown around. You don’t exchange pics until after she’s really into you, so no need to worry about what you look like. The only downside is getting their photo sometimes in which case you sometimes have to end the conversation right there.

This is a good solid analysis and I like the original guy’s experiment. It still amazes me how predictable and boring all the betas are.

It’s also solid evidence for doing daygame. Even though daygame has a high flake rate, it’s nowhere near as bad as online game. Even though daygame involves more effort initially, you get to see the women in the flesh before you even talk to her so you know exactly what you’re getting when you show up to the date.

Someone actually RAN a multi-month experiment on this very subject matter with a spread of fake profiles, male and female of varying levels of physical attractiveness. The results were as expected, but very shocking for those who are unfamiliar with th…

I would be like the middle guy. Is online dating worthwhile for that guy and what would be the best strategy? He got one email and his female equivalent got 76. It seems like female hypergamy would have more of a tendency to run wild on internet dating sites that have many men for women to pick from. The middle girl would be responding to all the guys above her. Player types of guys who look like the top guy would be very successful at getting girls like middle girl for short term flings. She would be willing to get involved with them due to the anonymity of the internet and her not knowing their player history and thinking they might want serious long term relationships. The anonymity of the internet would also attract lots of good looking scammers and she would be responding to them too. Eventually some of the women wise up, at least I think so from some of the disillusioned female online dating users I talk to, but the percentage of naive women on these sites seems to stay very high. So, as an average guy, I don’t see a way to signal to the average woman that I would be a better bet than that good looking guy who’s going to dump her when he gets bored with her, secretly make her part of his harem, or use her to get money out of her.

The question isn’t how many unsolicited emails he got, the question is his response rate. Generally I’d say it’s pretty good for guys in the 20th to 60th percentiles of attractiveness–better than that and you’re better off learning daygame, etc.

One thing to keep in mind also is the women who contact men on online dating sites are often (surprise!) fairly unattractive. I’ve been contacted by a several dozen on OKCupid but only a very small fraction of those were worth a response from any red-blooded male. We’re talking maybe, generously, 10% at best. I’ve only been out on dates with 2 who contacted me. 1 was a complete liar and had ballooned to at least 75 pounds heavier than her pics. You can imagine how that went. The other, was actually the hottest woman I’ve ever been out with. Russian with those kinda sad blue eyes, smoking hot body, better looking than her pics. This was simply a one-off statistical aberration though. As in real life, unless you’re an outlier male, you need to make the moves in order to make things happen online.

Not sure why younger women or men do online dating. A younger persons social life would entail constantly meeting people in places they hang out.

I think online dating should be done for older women & men and women past their primes who and men who would be interested in dating them for a number of reasons. Obviously as you get older you aren’t normally hanging out anymore like you used to (maybe career or just lost of interest in going places that are like meat markets) so you want to increase your odds of meeting someone on your level. Online dating coupled with possibilities of meeting people day to day is definitely why more mature people should be doing online dating vs younger.

Oh forgot to also mention online dating is great for more “specialized” interests like maybe interracial dating, homosexuals etc. mainly b/c if you are interested in meeting someone of a different race or same sex it’s much easier to find “like” people with the same interests online. Someone above mentioned an std dating site which is also another great example of “specialized” groups seeking like in which online dating makes sense regardless of age or attractiveness.

Specialized sites may be one thing, but I think we’re talking about the mainstream ones like okcupid and match. And you’re right that older women past their primes should try it, since just about any woman will get contacts from the crowd of cyberbetas.

Just because you’re meeting many new people doesn’t mean they’re legitimate dating prospects. At My uni, I meet new people every week, but that doesn’t change the fact that many guys at my college are frustrated.

I also have a bad reputation for being a manwhore, so i find solace in going to clubs at night and day game during the day. Online is just another venue for me to mitigate my dating. With that being said, I don’t date online but have friends who do. My friends don’t have the same reasons as me to shop outside of Stanford, but we all have reasons.

Finally, I’m sure you’ve noticed that even fresh out of college, that first job has really high demands. I’m still in college but my current internship, in finance, gives me little to no time or energy to go out. , I barely have any at all! Surely there are girls who *want* to meet me (I’m hot), but most dont even get the chance. That’s one of the reasons many of my friends troll Craigslist for prospects.

To be a successful 20-something, unless you develop a strategy, there’s no way around giving up many of your dating prospects.

I generally rely on day game in between seeing clients for my numbers….but do you even understand how hard it is for most guys to approach a cute girl in broad daylight?

People being young fails to explain why so many of them still go online.

Also as others pointed out, men are hunters and visual and would be waay more likely to contact an attractive woman online than other way around. Even if a woman sees a hot guys profile, most wouldnt contact him directly. Some hope that the “whose viewed yoyr profile” would be clue enough for him to contact her based on her viewing his profile. Also b/c the real ratio of very attractive women online is probably very low it would make sense that an above average chick would have inflation in messages.

K forgot to add, that these studies only really show that it’s more of men’s innate and high desire for a woman’s looks that come back to possibly bite them in the butt? What I mean is, how can men complain about studies like this, YET acknowledge how highly visual they are?? It would of course show that b/c if the latter by default men are going to be more hung ho in contacting women they find visually appealing. Women are slaves to our eyeballs and thus online dating is more of a mans “seeking” playground in where women exploit that by posting attractive pics.

IOW’s it’s not women’s fault that they are more heavily pursued online and it’s not really so bad that women exploit their attractiveness b/c men ALL MEN are slaves to their eyeballs.

Just a suggestion from a Roosh forum topic. Try getting on ChatRoulette to game girls. You have a three second window to fire them a message that hooks their attention, so naturally you become adept at dropping tantalizing leads.

I’ve had some girls tell me how sexy I look, and others that next me faster than I can blink. You get a really good idea of lines that get you in the door.

I’m still under the impression that half of the girls on CR really want to watch a guy bate – but not just any guy so they’ll click trough until they find one. I’ve found myself nexted while trying to game a girl who actually wanted to bate on cam with me.

The other half who actually want to *talk* to men really don’t know what they’re supposed to do on CR. get them on Skype ASAP. Many of them have boyfriends and Still would do stuff on cam.

Also, more evidence that CR is not real life – thin, attractive girls are more flirty and more down to strip on cam than fat women…or give out more contact info. In fact fat women on CR tend to the worst prospects due to how rude and entitled they are. This is why I can’t equate cr with pof. Although I stopped CR because I don’t get anything out of it anymore.

Doesn’t this just show that women prefer to be chased and men prefer to be the chasers?

It seems the most attractive women were getting attention from ALL males. The lower girls were attracting probably the lower males only or maybe a few bites from someone a bit higher but just in a dry spell.

I would assume that anyone trying to reach the men were those who felt that the fact that they had a profile meant they were kind of desperate and would be open to a women approaching them, specifically women who are not tens (because obviously when you are on the top end of the scale you have more attention then you can handle already).

But hey, I am just coming at this from a chick perspective. This does seem pretty true to life.

Also, like you mentioned, it really depends for women on the real life experience. The “hottest” two guys could totally creep me out while the fat guy and any one of the semi-good looking ones could make me laugh or be attractive. I have been down right attracted to guys who cannot take a good photo to save their life.

A camera has one lens, your eyes have two (one each). This is why some people look bad on camera perpetually.

I find a lot of truth in your post. For the longest time I never knew I was attractive to girls…. Until I sacked up and started approaching. Now I notice heads turn and IOIs wherever I go.

I have to agree with your chick logic on that note – and I’ve creeped out girls who I thought I could say *anything* to because I though I was out of her league. Ha ha! What a mistake.

There’s something to be said about those top two guys on pof though. Just being honest, unless they have confidence issues I can tell both guys could clean up in any decently sized city or town. They must be on pof to build a harem or see girls on the side. A friend of mine is doing that exact thing.

Thy could be getting less messages because girls know that….. It’s pretty obvious if you ask me.

Also I don’t think it’s that validating for girls (actually) with a full mailbox. The validation only comes from *attractive* guys – we as readers of this blog know 5 minutes of alpha…… Honestly most of these messages are like weeds to be pulled out of the garden, they don’t validate anything.

100 messages means nothing to a girl when she dances with 1 attractive guy at the club then blows him off when he showed interest too soon. Which will she be more likely to brag about to her friends – 100 pof messages or 1 grrrl

It could just as easily have answered the proposition “are men more pro-active in going after what they want than women?”

Repeat the same experiment, but instead of sex/relationships/trophies as the prize, substitute business supremacy, academic distinction, athletic excellence, feats of uncommon hardship, proceeds of crime, etc and you get the same results.

About the only thing women outstrip men in is the “why isn’t what I want landing in my lap?” Olympics.

The purpose of my previous post was to try to tease out a particular direction for our discussion. But it appears that it didn’t work. So I’ll be more specific.

What if we are all, men and women, being had? What if:
1) All the “nice” girls wanting stability and marriage, but subjected to peer pressure at high school, are having their first time with alphas and arseholes, only to move on to what they really want, which is beta schleb stability?
2) Women inhabit two different worlds… half of them are “nice” girls half are sluts, while all men are assumed to have “needs” that must be “met”. With the resulting fiction that “everybody’s doin’ it”, but in reality very few of us are getting exactly what we want. Could it be that everyone, both men and women, is living with this fiction in total ignorance of the reality that is actually taking place?

Imagine if half or more of the female population just wants to be a stay-at-home, provided-for, one-man woman, while everyone of the male population believes he has an itch that needs regular scratching and thus, mistakenly projects that women have reciprocal sexual needs? Women DO have very powerful sex drives, but they are fired up in very different contexts – for example, the thrill of the forbidden (which doesn’t really feature as strongly in men). And this has an impact on what fires up women, because it is kind of difficult for women to derive a thrill when the other party is perceived as being obsessed by an itch, and so one way around this is for women to select thugs, where danger, as brain-dead as it is, becomes the substitute thrill. But more importantly, I suggest, for the purpose of debate, that maybe a huge proportion of women are fundamentally refusing to accept the terms of the sexual revolution. This makes sense of a lot of things that have been observed at the House of Chateau… for example, the observation that a minority of alphas at the top of the pecking order are getting all the women. Among their conquests, they can include the “nice” girls who very rarely make themselves available for casual sex. The alpha thinks all women are sluts at heart, while the nice-girl, with a life-track record of say, 3 partners, thinks all men are doing it. And the betas who are missing out think it’s just a matter of learning game. And the fiction continues to thrive in all circles, men and women alike.

I’ve been to Europe. I know that women can be every bit as direct and no-nonesense as men. I’m not sure that we can attribute the statistical differences to gender roles as the pursuer versus the pursued – sure, it plays at least a small part, but just look at the differences. Women are just not that stupid. They’re having different needs met, hence the shortfall in supply. Most of those going online are probably just window-shopping.

I’m curious as to the Chateau’s opinion on the last part of the blog post: the “perfect message”. To save y’all the trouble of reading it, the brilliant message he decides to send out consists of about five hundred words written as a script for a news broadcast about her profile which mentions little details to show that he’s actually read it and and… uhhh, gawd, I’m cringing just thinking about it. It’s awful. It’s needy, trying-too-hard, and kinda stalkerish.

On the other hand, the hot girl he sends it to *does* respond very positively.

Men want “easy access,” true. They will pay women to provide vaginal friction. They go to strip clubs and get dry humped till they get relief. They consume massive amounts of porn and beat off on themselves. All even easier access than your “Cum One Cum All” Barnum Circus of a skirt.

The problem with empowering yourself with an easy-access cunt is it destroys your much greater feminine asset: exclusivity. (See the Clerks bit about 37 cocks.) A certain kind of man will abuse you to get his rocks off, but that’s only because that man has no better place to park his peter.

Men don’t want to just dump in a hole, though they will if necessity dictates: dudes will buttfuck each other in prison and on long navy cruises between ports. Why? Primal urges plus lack of options.

So here you come slithering along the same continuum as prison rape and subway masturbating. It’s not your desirable pussy that puts you at the top of that sordid list, it’s the paucity of feminine women that elevates you one step above glory holes and rest stops. Just because you beat out the skeeziest of options doesn’t mean you should be slapping yourself on the back, slapper.

Apologies! What I meant to say was: You are an empowered woman who is the master of her sexual destiny.

If only being “kind” worked on you, the desensitized fuck-hole detritus of this late period sexual revolution. You require pain because only the intense and sharp has a chance to reverberate down through the callus surrounding your soul. Come bend over daddy’s knee.

Post us a picture of your dead junkie eyes. I will show you the way to born again virginity. It’s not too late, prodigal daughter.

Excellent post. Deep, meaningful, analytical, insightful, and most important of all – true. While entertaining as well, it also carries around the implicit subtext that women, truly, have it easier in the sexual marketplace, and this is a depressing thought. No matter all the pros/cons between the sexes that one can make, having potential mates line up for evaluation will always be the factor that weighs in most heavily.

Some more thoughts:

1. “Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. ” Though looks are more important in a woman than in a man, this is not necessarily true. It is common knowledge that on the internet, and especially internet dating, the men outnumber the women. This fact alone, which isn’t as true in the real world, gives a woman more leverage online than otherwise. As you said, plain jane can feel like a queen, and a woman willing to camwhore / strip online at chatroulette or whatever will feel like a supermodel that’s given all the male attention in the world.

2. This is directed to Grit’s comment above me: there are better ways of learning game that are not indirectly and subtlely degrading. What you are doing is essentially telling your unconscious to learn how to please a woman and being her personal little entertainment chimp, when you know the heart of game is seeing *yourself* as the prize. stop being a lapdog. whatever practice you get isn’t worth your soul.

Exactly Disciple, the man is the prize. The problem is, though, that the most “authentically alpha” (for want of a better term) – that is, the one least interested in pleasing the woman – is the one least likely to score. He will be more formidable, more likely to spook women, because he’s going to be the least interested in applying the first rule of game… he won’t be interested in disarming women. The need to disarm women is why having a sense of humour is so important. Authentic alpha is simply not interested in receiving validation from women. By the same token, authentic alpha is not afraid of women, and he can have fun flirting with them and teasing them, but he’s going to lack the motivation to carry it through to its logical conclusion, and so he’s not going to be motivated to implement appropriate strategies. Why? Because integral to success with women is inauthenticity and the willingness to modulate your behaviour and alter your strategy depending on how it is being received.

Authentic alpha is as sexy as hell… but he will miss out in terms of numbers… not that he’d care, of course. He knows that the babied, provided-for sex has no right to judge him. The performing seal, by contrast, is shallow and apparently very average… if we consider the apparent over-representation of midgets among the PUA fraternity. I cannot help but wonder if there is some variant of short-man’s syndrome at play, something that resonates with women’s attraction to immature adolescents. There are many types of PUAs, but this over-representation is interesting… a statistical analysis is called for.

I think I understand you, Codebuster. I know the type of man you mean. They genuinely do not care and that is ultra hot. But men like that are frustrating. You have to just about shout at them to get them to notice you.

i think his “perfect email” while nowhere near perfect and more then a little bit tryhard shows us the importance of humour.
in the same vein, being cocky without humour or worse, with total lack of social savviness is worse then being a funny guy. (i hope, come to think of it i know a few complete self-absorbed assholes that i can’t stand having male

the funny part of the funny-cocky is the hard part,
its too easy to simply treat woman like assholes, a bit of humour is needed to elevate yourself from cavamen IQ.

I couldn’t agree with you more rikard, humor tends to really solidify making a connection or getting a woman’s interest. While it may not necessarily hold her interest, but isn’t the point to get her to notice you either via email or in a first encounter. After that, you better have personality amongst other tings to keep her interested.

This guy should’ve taken it one step further to see what would happen if the men sent out 10, 20, 30 messages to random women. I’d like to see the reply-back rate. This would be a much better indicator if online dating is worthwhile.

I tried a test somewhat like this about two years ago. I put an ad on the casual encounters section of Craigslist, W4M, and I wrote, “Old, fat, ugly and mean. But available.” That’s all I wrote.

I got eight to 10 messages in 30 minutes before the message got flagged and pulled down. About half replied with a variation of, “Just how mean are you?” Unbelievable. Some of these guys were in their 20s. WTF?

So what does this say about the so-called Sexual Revolution? Did “Hef” make a lot of promises to men which could never be kept? Was the Sexual Revolution simply a means for alpha males to open the floodgates to an endless harem of female concubines who flutter about them? Meantime, your average guy is left is the wilderness, chasing mirages?

With all the trolls around average guys are making other average guys feel inadequate. They fuss and they fuss online while the girl of their dreams is bent over on her knees taking it just like a good girl should.

One of the things that amazes me now that I am older and single are the number of women in their late-30s or even early-40s that seem so casual and assured about finding a guy to have kids with.

What are these women thinking? What have they been doing (other than chasing alphas) with themselves? How stupid and brainwashed they must be.

I still get emails from girls in their late-30s that are homely and should not even waste their time emailing me. And I would be trouble for them because I would just use them like so many guys before me used them.

Only a few years of fertility left and they are still chasing the unattainable. It is just so amazing how unaware they are of their predicament.

I’ve had a similar experience. I get winks or messages from women 35+, or homely, overweight women and it sucks all around. Sucks for them because I ignore them. Sucks for me because it makes me question my own dating market value if these are the beasts that think I am a good match for them.

This experiment is a great ego save, however. Based on the study’s findings, I must be on the good-looking end of the spectrum to even have these fatties and old maids contacting me at all.

It’s not you. I know it’s not me because I know what my market is in both the internet world and the real world market.

I’m now reminded of a setup I had by a well-meaning older friend that set me up with his friend’s young daughter. She was a dog and out of shape. I went out as a courtesy, and she kept asking about me afterwards trying to get another date. (I think I relented and went out again making it worse.)

The fact that ANYONE thought that I would be interested in this girl is remarkable to me. This is not only about internet dating.

I’m reminded of the housing market in around 2008. Seller’s were like women today. They could not believe that their real estate was not worth a fortune. They refused to come down to the market. Transactions stopped cold.

The relationship between the sexes is more extreme because women (the house being sold) is deteriorating at an accelerating rate. Yet they won’t sell. We can say it over and over again, but it’s amazing to watch such self-destruction. Many of these older women are done.

Check out the woman that wrote “Just Marry Him” for The Atlantic. She gets it and knows she is done. She deserves credit for talking the truth. You should see the defensive responses in the comments to that article.

Funny, a 38-year-old troll from the other side of the country has reemerged because I accidentally favorited her 6 months ago. She will not stop, but she has no basis to even think for a moment I would go near her but for my slip up. I am more than a foot taller than her.

Feminists / ugly women have the strongest interest in artificially delimiting the pool of reproductive females, starting with “the young”. (Already one can’t have a conversation about a 25 year old woman without the interlocutor calling them “a kid”, or “still young”. Elsewhere, a 25 year old Oaxacan mother of five drops a garbage bag of used diapers into the village creek.)

Of course they are twisted themselves, they are not directly competing, so it is really a huge cultural cock-block motivated by resentment and narcissism (aka HATRED OF WHITE MEN), as in everything they do and have done.

I see it’s about the Chinese, though. Their traditional modes have become culturally pathological too. There is no real, nation-wide solution to these problems because it’s the fact of being socially so expanded and divorced from natural environments that is creating them. Social expectations run all too high in a world totally blanketed by the technology of a highly intelligent eusocial species.

Ultimately, from the plain “evolutionary perspective” everyone loves to tout but shy away from when it comes to this, the only females worth mating with are under 20. Well under. We are being groomed to accept a 28 year old as young, even “optimal”.

Quote: “In your 20s, explore life’s possibilities — Soon, you’ll enter new long-term obligations, and those obligations will circumscribe your life forever. Now is the one time in your entire adult life that you’ll ever get to be a little selfish.”

As though we were not “selfish” from ages 0 through 19? How many of us worked in the Peace Corps at age 10? How sad women are being encouraged to slut it up through their best years.

Quote: “It’s way better to be an older parent. Our love since has resulted in two baby girls, born when I was 39 and 41.”

So you traded years with your children and grandchildren in your later years for sleeping around with white guys that used you for sex. Oh, and traveling overseas by yourself and sleeping with Europeans. We can’t forget that.

We need to culturally shake all these women by the shoulders and wake them up.

Seriously: how many milquetoast/ foreign guys get cold attraction points short of fame and fortune? I seriously doubt it even happens. Unless there are bad-boy images or shots full of women that demonstrate clear preselection, why waste the time.

In fact, chicks hamsters are probably look at those images and reading his profile thinking

Cute white guy: “Oh he sounds so affectionate and interesting.”
Every other guy: “Gross. He sounds kind of desperate.”

Agree with lightly braised turnip (what a great name by the way). It amazes me some of the women that message me on POF. WTF are they thinking? I have to LOL sometimes because occasionally I will get an obvious CTRL C CTRL V message from the SAME GIRL 2 or 3 times! Ha ha

You get a funny pattern with girls from online dating on sites like POF and match.com : they have a brief rush of euphoria at all the attention they are getting. Usually head swells and sense of entitlement increases. Then they meet 1 or 2 of the guys and find that he lied about mostly everything, or he is a different person, or is 10 years older and a lot heavier. LOL. Then they get crestfallen and more cynical than before.

On sites like Sugardaddie – they come to some sort of arrangement, if they are a bit slutty and good looking (hint – check out sugardaddie for this. The standard of girl is much higher and they don’t mess about – if you’re attractive and know what you are doing, it’s pretty easy. Met quite a few girls off there, glamour models, escorts etc and obviously never paid a thing!)

But I don’t use online dating much anymore. In my experience, 99% of time, they are never as good looking in real life as in their photos.

Two other points, the profile Content is similar to what a chick would write about herself.
1. It’s well known that a guy barely reads or quickly scans a girl’s profile, but supposedly a girl will read a guy’s profile.
So chicks reading these guy’s profiles might be turned off by the lack of any display of dominance – this could contribute to the poor showing.

2. As somebody mentioned above, the supposedly hottest girl/guy, both seem like Hispanics – so they both might have gotten less positive responses due to this, as the audience on all dating sites is largely White.

The conclusions drawn in the post may be right, but the experiment itself isn’t any good…the two guys supposed to be “hot” are in fact not hot but barely above average. Hot would be to put a buff/ripped guy with a model face. I put up a fake profile on OKcupid like that, of some muscular guy with a tan and tats, and I openly said I was looking for casual sex and other stuff like that. I don’t know what would have happened if I had made it more “relationship” oriented, but I wanted it to be as crass as possible. I got some messages, but more important, I did get a lot of replies even from “nice” girls who claimed that they wouldn’t answer guys who were looking for casual sex. And all of my messages were no more than a “Hey” or a “hey ure cute…”; I got a pretty good response rate for that. Maybe girls wait to be messaged, but they certainly do respond very well to hot men, both in real life and online. Probably more often in real life though, since there’s no record of it.

It would be interesting to see the study repeated with actually “hot” men in the profiles. And to consider not just how many messages you receive, but response rate.

Regarding the two better looking males, their facial expressions might explain why the presumable better looking male received fewer messages. Look closely at their facial expressions. The one who received more messages has a sly, shit-eating grin while the ‘better looking’ one has more of a beta-ish “im ready to fall in love with you at the first sign of interest” smile. I can’t personally judge which of the two is better looking, but the sly grin is more alpha and conveys ‘sexual threat’ while guy smiley looks like he is thinking about rainbows and puppy dogs.

“(Strangely, the putative hottest man got no messages.) ”
This may be less about which of the two is ‘hottest’ and more about his facial expression invoking the female beta sorting algorithm. With that smile he looks… ‘nice.’

I’m 6’3″, late 20s, work in finance (six figs about), own my own place, game savvy, and am ripped from lifting five times a week. Primary disadvantage is not having a movie star face. Even so, I get maybe one unsolicited message a week. Only guys with the complete and utter package with no missing aspects seem to get the red dots.

When I go out trolling, my response rate is pretty solid, but since OKC has become fat chicks on parade recently I rarely even bother.

“Thinking” has little to do with it, alas. Many women are acting on their emotions, or their romanticized (i.e., delusional) images of marriage based on chick fliks and trashy romance novels. Marriage to a middle aged female is a sort of status symbol, indicating that after getting the MFA, the affirmative action job, the BMWSUV, she can now snag in a man; i.e., the sister can have it all.

Thing is, it makes more sense for a a female to get married/have children when she is in her 20s, owing to factors of fertility, not to mention the energy needed to deal with infants/children. By the time she hits 40, she has missed the proverbial boat. The result is a growing number of frustrated middle aged women.

A middle aged guy, on the other hand, has a shot at bringing in a younger wife if he plays his cards right. Of course, this leads to a lot of younger men being pushed out the dating scene, though perhaps getting their chance (revenge) when they are in their 30s and can now dump women their own age (just as women their own age dumped them back in their 20s).

All this ought to give America pause about where the country is headed…but it won’t.

CH is an intelligent dude. I wonder if he’s connected up the dots. There exists a direct relationship between the topic of this post, and the most recent incarnation of the topic on chicks dig jerks. Fear is the thrill, but it is also the essential element that requires men to be the pursuer and the provider and the woman the pursued and the provided-for. The babied sex is the fearful sex. However, a trigger warning… this interpretation requires you to dump genocentrism. Nothing of this relationship can be understood by viewing it from the perspective that “it’s all in the genes.”

[…] in the market for women, so biology puts them at a major disadvantage. Game strategist Heartiste recently posted about an online dating experience where together, the two best looking guys managed to get a total […]

[…] suggests that all women should have access to Floronius’ sexuality. Social systems in which women’s sexual opportunities are much richer than men’s devalue men’s sexuality. They also tend to reduce men’s person to an animal nature […]